Skip to content


Ellis Stella Beaumont Vs. English Motor Car Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1938Cal448
AppellantEllis Stella Beaumont
RespondentEnglish Motor Car Co.
Excerpt:
- .....left with him either for sale or for custody to a third party. he brought a suit against the third party and states that he abandoned it. in point of fact it appears that certain of these cars are with him. he states that they were released or exempted. it looks as if the whole transaction of hypothecation had been fictitious. that is my view. if not, he has made a fictitious settlement. he got the cars back. in my opinion the conduct of the defendant comes under section 51, proviso, sub-section (a) (ii) of the civil procedure code as amended [this was added by section 2 of the civil p.c. (amending) act (21 of 1936)]. having regard to the fact that he got the cars back which he says he has, although he says they do not belong to him, none of them belong to him. i think the inference to.....
Judgment:

Ameer Ali, J.

1. The judgment-debtor has shown cause under the amended clauses of Section 51, Civil P.C., 1908. I am satisfied that the defendant did make a fraudulent concealment or transfer of his property, or a portion of it, and committed an act of bad [faith by making a hypothecation which he has referred to in his affidavit. He has stated in evidence that he hypothecated the plaintiff's car along with other people's cars which were left with him either for sale or for custody to a third party. He brought a suit against the third party and states that he abandoned it. In point of fact it appears that certain of these cars are with him. He states that they were released or exempted. It looks as if the whole transaction of hypothecation had been fictitious. That is my view. If not, he has made a fictitious settlement. He got the cars back. In my opinion the conduct of the defendant comes under Section 51, proviso, Sub-section (a) (ii) of the Civil Procedure Code as amended [This was added by Section 2 of the Civil P.C. (Amending) Act (21 of 1936)]. Having regard to the fact that he got the cars back which he says he has, although he says they do not belong to him, none of them belong to him. I think the inference to be drawn is that he has the means to pay this small decree.

2. I doubt whether strictly the judgment-debtor comes within Clause (c). It is true that on his own statement the car was left with him. The car was with him and he disposed of it fraudulently. That does not appear to bring him within Clause (c) as the decree was simply for the price of the car. It was however a dishonest conduct and taken with the other circumstances it has led me to the conclusion that I have come on the other parts of the section. There will be an order for his committal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //